Gary Thompson

The respondents, a professional engineer and his engineering firm, faced disciplinary proceedings following the partial collapse of a five-storey condominium building under construction.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, including negligence, failing to safeguard life and property, and failing to comply with applicable building codes.

Specifically, they provided incorrect instructions to a steel fabricator, failed to correct deficient shop drawings, and issued inaccurate field reports indicating the structure was stable when it was not.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's licence and the firm's certificate of authorization, and a restriction requiring the member to practice under direct supervision until passing an advanced structural design exam.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and an engineering firm regarding the failed design of a critical structural component of the Nipigon River Bridge.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, acknowledging they failed to verify critical design assumptions and provided inadequate oversight of a junior engineer.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-week licence suspension for the engineer, a requirement for the firm to implement a Quality Assurance Plan, and $200,000 in costs.

The respondent, a former professional engineer, admitted to professional misconduct for certifying a structurally inadequate railing system design that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, publication with names, and, should the respondent seek reinstatement, a two-month suspension and a restriction prohibiting him from providing structural engineering services until he passes a specified examination.

The moving party, a professional engineer, sought a stay of discipline proceedings against him, arguing that a 4.5-year delay in the Association's investigation constituted an abuse of process.

The charges arose from a 2017 workplace fatality involving a collapsed arch.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Abrametz, the Discipline Committee majority found the delay was inordinate given the investigation's lack of complexity.

However, the Committee unanimously concluded that the moving party failed to establish significant hearing or personal prejudice caused by the delay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, as the public interest in having the allegations heard on their merits outweighed any harm caused by the delay.

Following a finding of professional misconduct for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the investigation, the Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing.

The member and his firm failed to attend.

The Committee found the member ungovernable due to serious technical failings, an uncaring attitude, and a complete lack of cooperation or remorse.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's licence and the firm's Certificate of Authorization, directed publication of a summary of the decision with names, and ordered the respondents to pay $25,000 in costs.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and his firm for preparing inadequate design drawings for a retaining wall and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The retaining wall, designed using a dead man system, failed shortly after construction, causing property damage and safety concerns.

The Discipline Committee found the respondents guilty of professional misconduct, concluding they were negligent, failed to safeguard property, failed to comply with applicable codes, and acted unprofessionally by ignoring the investigator's inquiries.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member and a Certificate of Authorization holder for issuing deficient structural drawings that failed to properly account for snow loads.

The respondents admitted to the allegations, acknowledging the designs failed to meet the standard of a reasonable and prudent practitioner and did not comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission to revoke the member's licence and publish his name.

For the holder, the Committee ordered a reprimand to be recorded on the register for one year and publication of its name, noting its extensive cooperation and remediation efforts.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent, an electrical engineer, after he submitted an 'alternative solution' under the Fire Code for a rental property he owned.

The respondent lacked the training and experience to prepare the alternative solution and had previously been convicted of a Fire Protection and Prevention Act offence for failing to comply with a Fire Safety Inspection Order.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for undertaking work he was not competent to perform and for his provincial offence conviction.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $2,500 fine, successful completion of the Professional Practice Examination within 18 months, and a 10-month suspension that would be suspended pending compliance with the examination requirement.